DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species B drawn to inorganic heat resistant particles drawn to claims 54-58, 61 and 75 in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inorganic particles are used in combination with organic particles. This is found persuasive and the Species restriction between Species A and B is withdrawn. In addition, Applicant traverses the restriction based that there is no undue burden between groups. This is not found persuasive because the different groups will require different text based searches and different classification searches. Group I is drawn to the claims 54-58, 61, 62, and 75 and will be examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 59, 60 ,and 63-74 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 75 is objected to because of the following minor informality the claim recites the limitation “and the water-insoluble sticky polymer may be in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles and the sticky water-soluble polymer or in a different layer of the coating, and wherein the water-insoluble sticky polymer is in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles and the sticky water-soluble polymer, or wherein the water-insoluble sticky polymer is in a different layer of the coating than the heat-resistant particles and the sticky water-soluble polymer are in”. The claim limitation of “and the water-insoluble sticky polymer may be in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles and the sticky water-soluble polymer or in a different layer of the coating” appears to be repeated twice. Further clarification and/or appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following minor informality the claim recites PVDF which is an abbreviated form of a polymer, which is not entirely clear. Please spell out the entire unabbreviated form of PVDF. Further clarification and/or appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim 62 is objected to because of the following minor informality the claim recites PPO-PEO which is an abbreviated form of a copolymer, which is not entirely clear. Please spell out the entire unabbreviated form of PPO-PEO. Further clarification and/or appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 55 recites “or wherein the porous base film is a microporous polyolefin base film” the presence of the word “or” leads to claim being unclear because it is unclear which of the several claim limitations which begin with the word “wherein” should be considered to be present in the alternative. Are all the wherein limitations required except for “or wherein the porous base film is a microporous polyolefin base film” or is only a single wherein limitation required. Further clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 54, 56, 57, 58, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20190280274 A1).
Regarding claim 54, Kim discloses a sticky heat-resistant coated separator ([0028]-[0074])comprising:
a porous base film [0030]; and
a sticky (adheres to surface and formed with a water-soluble binder and therefore is sticky [0070] polyvinyl alcohol and in addition comprises sticky particles [0043] ) heat-resistant coating ([0038] and [0058], coating can include inorganic particles such as those in [0059]) on at least one side of the base film, wherein the
sticky heat-resistant coating layer comprises heat-resistant particles ([0044] first organic particles 200, made of PMMA or PVdF, or [0048]-[0061] inorganic particles and/or second organic particles 300, [0052] ) and a sticky water-soluble polymer (enhances binding and includes , polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol and is aqueous [0072]), wherein at least a portion of the heat-resistant particles are coated ([0079]) with the sticky water-soluble polymer.
Regarding claim 56, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kim discloses wherein the sticky heat-resistant coating further comprises sticky particles made of a water-insoluble sticky polymer (first 200 and/or second 300 organic particles [0044] first organic particles 200, made of PMMA or PVdF, or [0048]-[0061] inorganic particles and/or second organic particles 300, [0052] PMMA), and the water-insoluble sticky polymer may be in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles (first or second organic particles or inorganic particles [0079]) and the sticky water-insoluble polymer (enhances binding and includes polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol and is aqueous [0072]) and wherein the water-insoluble polymer is one or more selected from the group consisting of a PVDF homopolymer, a PVDF copolymer, a PVDF terpolymer, an acrylic polymer, or mixtures thereof (first 200 and/or second 300 organic particles [0044] first organic particles 200, made of PMMA or PVdF, or [0048]-[0061] inorganic particles and/or second organic particles 300, [0052] PMMA).
Regarding claim 57, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kim discloses wherein the sticky water-soluble polymer (enhances binding and includes , polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol and is aqueous [0072]) is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide, polyethylene oxide based co-polymer, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), or combinations thereof ((enhances binding and includes, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol and is aqueous [0072])).
Regarding claim 58, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kim discloses a lithium ion battery comprising the separator of claim 54 ([0119]).
Regarding claim 75, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kim discloses wherein the sticky heat-resistant coating further comprises sticky particles made of a water-insoluble sticky polymer (first 200 and/or second 300 organic particles [0044] first organic particles 200, made of PMMA or PVdF, or [0048]-[0061] inorganic particles and/or second organic particles 300, [0052] PMMA), and the water-insoluble sticky polymer may be in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles and the sticky water-soluble polymer ([0079]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190280274 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kim discloses heat-resistant particles (note as set forth above the heat resistant particles can include first and second organic particles and/or also inorganic particles [0044][0048]-[0061])
However, Kim does not disclose wherein a ratio of heat-resistant particles to sticky water-soluble polymer is from 1:1 to 15:1 or wherein a total amount of heat-resistant particles in the coating is greater than or equal to 20% or equal to or greater than 50%.
Kim does disclose that an amount of the binder in the coating layer may be greater than 0 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight, for example, 1 to 30 parts by weight, or 5 to 15 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total organic particles comprising the first organic particles and the second organic particles ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
In addition, Kim discloses wherein the sticky heat-resistant coating further comprises sticky particles made of a water-insoluble sticky polymer (first 200 and/or second 300 organic particles [0044] first organic particles 200, made of PMMA or PVdF, or [0048]-[0061] inorganic particles and/or second organic particles 300, [0052] PMMA), and the water-insoluble sticky polymer may be in the same layer of the coating as the heat-resistant particles (first or second organic particles or inorganic particles [0079]) and the sticky water-soluble polymer (enhances binding and includes polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol and is aqueous [0072]).
In addition, Kim discloses wherein heat-resistant particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, CaCO₃, TiO₂, SiS₂, SiPO4, AIO(OH), or mixtures thereof ([0059]), wherein the coating layer further comprises a binder, wherein the binder comprises an acrylic binder ([0072] can include polyacrylic),
In addition, Kim discloses that the coating can have a thickness of 0.3 to 3 microns ([0060]), but does not explicitly disclose the range of wherein the coating has a thickness of 1 to 10 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
In addition, Kim discloses wherein the porous base film is a microporous polyolefin base film ([0030]).
Claim(s) 61 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190280274 A1) as applied to claims 54, 56, 57, 58, and 75 above and in further view of Bae (KR 20130134926 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 61 and 62, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition Kim discloses that the first organic particles can be formed of PVDF ([0044] first organic particles 200, made of PVdF).
However, Kim does not disclose wherein the sticky water-soluble polymer is a co-polymer and wherein the co-polymer is a PPO-PEO copolymer.
Bae discloses that a polymer binder applied to a separator that contain heat-resistant particles [0024] can include a surfactant which include a PPO-PEO copolymer ([0029]-[0031]) and that the surfactant improve the impregnation of the electrolyte into the separator ([0025]).
Bae discloses that the polymer binder that water-soluble polymers are preferred ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at time of filing to modify the sticky water soluble-polymer binder of Kim to further include a surfactant which includes a PPO-PEO copolymer as disclosed by Bae because it will further improve the impregnation of the electrolyte into the separator.
With regards to the claim limitation “ wherein one polymer of the co-polymer is more compatible with at least one of the heat resistant particle than another polymer of the co-polymer is” modified Kim discloses the same material for the co-polymer and the same material for the heat resistant particle as instantly claimed and therefore will have the same property as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights